WotC Hasbro's CEO Reports OGL-Related D&D Beyond Cancellations Had Minimal Impact

Hasbro held a quarterly earnings call recently in which CEO Chris Cocks (who formerly ran WotC before being promoted) indicated that the OGL controversy had a "comparatively minor" impact on D&D's revenue due to D&D Beyond subscription cancellations. He also noted that D&D grew by 20% in 2022 (Magic: the Gathering revenues grew by an astonishing 40% in Quarter 4!)

WotC as a whole was up 22% in Q4 2022.

Lastly, on D&D, we misfired on updating our Open Gaming License, a key vehicle for creators to share or commercialize their D&D inspired content. Our best practice is to work collaboratively with our community, gather feedback, and build experiences that inspire players and creators alike - it's how we make our games among the best in the industry. We have since course corrected and are delivering a strong outcome for the community and game.

 

[billd91]

What I think is "curious" is that people are still upset about a change a corporation thought about implementing but then backed off based on feedback. Even if it was stupid, unnecessary and messy.

I assume everyone at some point or other thought about doing something monumentally stupid and changed their minds, perhaps after discussing it with someone. Why hold a corporation to such a high standard that most people couldn't ever achieve?

If they had thought about it by discussing it in a conference room and someone had said "That's a bad idea, Bob" and they backed off then, that may constitute them thinking about it and backing off. Going public with it as the plan, stirring up a panicked hornet's nest, and then backing off is a different thing from "thinking about it". I'd say it constitutes trying to implement it and running into opposition.

 

[Oofta]

If they had thought about it by discussing it in a conference room and someone had said "That's a bad idea, Bob" and they backed off then, that may constitute them thinking about it and backing off. Going public with it as the plan, stirring up a panicked hornet's nest, and then backing off is a different thing from "thinking about it". I'd say it constitutes trying to implement it and running into opposition.

It's a big company full of bureaucrats who don't understand the culture.

It's also water under the bridge. It wasn't changed, some people pushed a stupid idea, they realized it was a mistake and it wasn't implemented.

 

[seebs]

If someone proposes to do a stupid thing that is within their rights and does not betray my trust, I might think they're a dumbass but won't be mad.

If they repeatedly promise to absolutely not do a thing, and make contracts with me and other people that include a commitment not to do that thing, then announce that they're doing it anyway... Even if they back down, I will never trust them again.

And you know what? This is not my first rodeo. I have had other entities (people or companies) that I dealt with announce intent to do crappy things, and back down in response to pressure. And every time, it has not been an isolated incident, but rather, a recurring theme in future interactions with them.

If someone announces intent betray trust, intentionally and with clear evidence that they understand what they're doing and think it's worth it, and they stop only because they decide it's not worth it, that tells me that they will absolutely do it if they think it's worth it. It tells me they have no moral principle against betraying trust. So if I deal with them in the future, I do it in ways where them suddenly deciding to betray won't hurt me too badly, because I know they'll do it again. And again. And again.

Maybe this is the unique exception, the one company that won't do that. But I don't think that's plausible.

 

[Imaro]

If someone proposes to do a stupid thing that is within their rights and does not betray my trust, I might think they're a dumbass but won't be mad.

If they repeatedly promise to absolutely not do a thing, and make contracts with me and other people that include a commitment not to do that thing, then announce that they're doing it anyway... Even if they back down, I will never trust them again.

And you know what? This is not my first rodeo. I have had other entities (people or companies) that I dealt with announce intent to do crappy things, and back down in response to pressure. And every time, it has not been an isolated incident, but rather, a recurring theme in future interactions with them.

If someone announces intent betray trust, intentionally and with clear evidence that they understand what they're doing and think it's worth it, and they stop only because they decide it's not worth it, that tells me that they will absolutely do it if they think it's worth it. It tells me they have no moral principle against betraying trust. So if I deal with them in the future, I do it in ways where them suddenly deciding to betray won't hurt me too badly, because I know they'll do it again. And again. And again.

Maybe this is the unique exception, the one company that won't do that. But I don't think that's plausible.

How many years did the OGL exist without being challenged (putting aside the fact that the OGL didn't have to be created in the first place)? Didn't they put the 5e SRD in creative commons as a result of realizing the blunder they mad and safeguarding against it. I seriously don't understand how one wrong move over the span of almost 20 years along with an irrevocable correction to it garners the type of distrust some gamers seem to have for WotC now.

 

[billd91]

How many years did the OGL exist without being challenged (putting aside the fact that the OGL didn't have to be created in the first place)? Didn't they put the 5e SRD in creative commons as a result of realizing the blunder they mad and safeguarding against it. I seriously don't understand how one wrong move over the span of almost 20 years along with an irrevocable correction to it garners the type of distrust some gamers seem to have for WotC now.

It's not the number of times they've made a misstep (I'd add going GSL for 4e as a first, boneheaded salvo taken at the OGL), it's the magnitude of the attempt. Whether or not they made an important course correction in the end, they willfully came within a small margin of burning it all down. So while I'm still going to go ahead and buy WotC material that interests me, I can understand people being a lot more wary of WotC than they would have been earlier in the 5e cycle.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How many years did the OGL exist without being challenged (putting aside the fact that the OGL didn't have to be created in the first place)? Didn't they put the 5e SRD in creative commons as a result of realizing the blunder they mad and safeguarding against it. I seriously don't understand how one wrong move over the span of almost 20 years along with an irrevocable correction to it garners the type of distrust some gamers seem to have for WotC now.

It's the culture shock of discovering that WotC isn't just the guy you yell at for not doing the rules right or having color in artwork, but is actually a company that absolutely will sell you out for money.

A lot of people got complacent with that fact that they weren't TSRing it up for the last few decades and them BAM! TSRing all over the place.

 

[Imaro]

It's the culture shock of discovering that WotC isn't just the guy you yell at for not doing the rules right or having color in artwork, but is actually a company that absolutely will sell you out for money.

A lot of people got complacent with that fact that they weren't TSRing it up for the last few decades and them BAM! TSRing all over the place.

I think you hit it on the head. I think with a little research alot of people would discover they are actively supporting companies that have actually done far worse...as opposed to reconsider and choose not to. But hey, to each their own.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think you hit it on the head. I think with a little research alot of people would discover they are actively supporting companies that have actually done far worse...as opposed to reconsider and choose not to. But hey, to each their own.

That the best part -- it's almost impossible to do that!

Wanna eat? Wanna have entertainment? Want to exist in a healthy chunk of the world without becoming a mountain hermit? Welcome to being an accessory to the the crime!

 

[Oofta]

If someone proposes to do a stupid thing that is within their rights and does not betray my trust, I might think they're a dumbass but won't be mad.

If they repeatedly promise to absolutely not do a thing, and make contracts with me and other people that include a commitment not to do that thing, then announce that they're doing it anyway... Even if they back down, I will never trust them again.

And you know what? This is not my first rodeo. I have had other entities (people or companies) that I dealt with announce intent to do crappy things, and back down in response to pressure. And every time, it has not been an isolated incident, but rather, a recurring theme in future interactions with them.

If someone announces intent betray trust, intentionally and with clear evidence that they understand what they're doing and think it's worth it, and they stop only because they decide it's not worth it, that tells me that they will absolutely do it if they think it's worth it. It tells me they have no moral principle against betraying trust. So if I deal with them in the future, I do it in ways where them suddenly deciding to betray won't hurt me too badly, because I know they'll do it again. And again. And again.

Maybe this is the unique exception, the one company that won't do that. But I don't think that's plausible.

For a corporation the size of WOTC and the, shall we say "exceptional" nature of the OGL 1.0a, they corrected their mistake relatively quickly. I don't know what "repeated" incidents you're referring to - it was one planned change that was completely and irrevocably reversed. One that they are now looking at making even more older products irrevocably public domain.

The OGL is, from an industry perspective, a very odd agreement. Some bureaucrats thought they should bring the licensing in more in line with industry standards, not understanding the big picture. They had to be beat over the head with data including the survey in order to finally accede that it was a bad idea.

Ultimately they did realize the OGL 1.1 was a bad idea. The fact that it took a while to change direction shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who knows how long it can take a corporation to back down. I'm sure some manager's egos were part of the issue as well. It was one incident, one proposed change. It just took a while to resolve.

 

[seebs]

The "repeated" incidents I'm referring to are not WotC, they're other companies which suddenly announced something that struck me as deeply unethical, and backed down. And then, in every previous case, went ahead to try other similar things again later.

Yes, it was just one proposed change, but it was a proposed change that suggests that they believe that it's okay if they make agreements, then decide the agreements are bad and just stop following them, without regard for the terms and conditions governing those agreements. A person who thought that was a legitimate course of action, and backed down because it was unpopular, will still think it's a legitimate course of action every future time it would be in their best interests to try to unilaterally alter the terms of a deal, and will still try it if they think it'll work.

This doesn't have much effect on me in my current line of work or whatever, but if I were a third-party publisher, and considering entering into a contract or deal with WotC, I would be very careful about what the terms were, and I would not enter into an agreement if I didn't have a plan in place for what to do if they just declared that they were violating the terms because they didn't like them anymore.